I am not sure about the level of review in these appeals. In regular court, you generally only appeal on points and interpretations of law - the appellate court just has to find that, in their view, the judge was incorrect. Findings of fact are only appealable if they disclose a palpable and overriding error - a completely unreasonable finding (a difference of opinion of the appellate court doesn't = overturning a finding of fact).
If it's the same in this procedure, it's hard to win an appeal of a finding that he acted with intent. He could win an appeal if the finding was "an accident but he acted recklessly" because I think then there would have been an incorrect interpretation of the rulebook. Or he could win a lower penalty if he can show it was unreasonable.
I've seen private arbitration rules which give a lot of scope to an appeal and some with a very narrow scope.
|